Case C-448/22 P: Appeal brought on 6 July 2022 by Stiftung für Forschung und Lehre (SFL) against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 1 June 2022 in Case T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v SRB
Date: 2022-07-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU banking union, Spain, bank, bank resolution, company in difficulties, right to justice








C_2022359EN.01004801.xml










19.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/48






Appeal brought on 6 July 2022 by Stiftung für Forschung und Lehre (SFL) against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 1 June 2022 in Case T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v SRB
(Case C-448/22 P)
(2022/C 359/56)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: Stiftung für Forschung und Lehre (SFL) (represented by: R. Pelayo Jiménez and A. Muñoz Aranguren, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: Single Resolution Board (SRB), Kingdom of Spain, European Parliament, Council of the European Union, European Commission, Banco Santander, SA, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






1.


set aside the judgment of the General Court, Third Chamber, Extended Composition of 1 June 2022 as well as the Decision of the Executive Session of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) SRB/EES/2017/08 of 7 June 2017 on the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;










2.


in the alternative, in the event that the state of the procedure does not allow the Court to rule on the merits of the case, set aside the judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court so that it may deliver a new judgment in accordance with the ruling of the Court;










3.


in any event, order the SRB to pay the costs of the present appeal and the costs of the action for annulment before the General Court, and order BANCO SANTANDER to bear its own costs at both instances.





Pleas in law and main arguments

First plea in law: alleging infringement by the judgment under appeal of the right to effective judicial protection (Article 47 of the Charter), as well as of Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Articles 76(d) and 103(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, and the case-law of the ECtHR on the right to a fair trial (use of relevant evidence and access to justice).
Second plea in law: infringement by the judgment of the Court of the right to effective judicial protection (Article 47 of the Charter), Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 103(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, and infringement of the principle of prudence applied to the Single Resolution Mechanism.
Third plea in law: infringement of the duty to state reasons by the decision of the SRB, which is not remedied by the judgment under appeal, and breach of the principle of equality of arms (Article 47 of the Charter).
Fourth plea in law: infringement by the judgment under appeal of Articles 17 and 52 of the Charter and misinterpretation of Article 20(16) of Regulation No 806/2014. (1)

Fifth plea in law: infringement of Article 18(1)(b) of Regulation 806/2014, since the judgment under appeal denies that the existence of early intervention measures, which would have prevented the non-viability of Banco Popular, would render the resolution decision null and void.
Sixth plea in law: error of law in not finding that the existence of an emergency liquidity facility sufficient to deal with the liquidity crisis of Banco Popular, approved by the Bank of Spain and the ECB, was established. Infringement of Article 18(1) SRMR.
Seventh plea in law: infringement of Articles 20(1) and 20(5)(b) of Regulation No 806/2014, since the judgment of the General Court held that Deloitte had the status of ‘independent expert’.
Eighth plea in law: infringement of Article 24 of Regulation 806/2014 and Article 39(2)(b), (d) and (f) of Directive 2014/59 (2) by the judgment under appeal, since the obligation to maximise the sale price in the resolution process and to respect the principle of equality and transparency between the interested bidders was not complied with.


(1)  Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 — OJ 2014 L 255, p. 1.

(2)  Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council — OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190.